So let me get this straight...

Seven3 · Post by **Seven3** » Mon Nov 20, 2000 9:45 am

Everyone in The US who's over 18 gets to vote to see which party wins in their state. The winner of a state gets points based on population, and the party with the most point wins the election.
But if the loser wants contest the result, both parties hire a conspiracy (I'm pretty sure that's what they call a group-) of high priced lawyers and take the matter to higher and higher levels of the legal system. At the top of which are 7 people (out of a population of 274,943,494.00) who make the final decision, and this is called Democracy?------------------
Time will tell. Sooner or later, time will tell - Albert Einstein, Red Alert.
Don't Panic. - Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Spam Works(tm) - Overloaded billboard, <A HREF="http://portside.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>PortSide</A>
__|__P /_._
. |/ .. . |/
. / . .. / _
A pic from the first violent video game, Axe.

Dan Nicholls · Post by **Dan Nicholls** » Mon Nov 20, 2000 11:33 am

Actually, this is pretty well unprecedented. The Judicial system has little to nothing to do with the electoral process. While I don't blame the justices for ruling in the case, I do blame the campaigns for doing such a thing to the presidential institution.------------------
<A HREF="http://gunz.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://gunz.keenspace.com</A>
Aim high. I'm short.AH! Go post in my <A HREF="http://www.keenspace.com/cgi-bin/ubb/fo ... &SUBMIT=Go" TARGET=_blank>forum</A> or we'll all die a furry, furry death! AH!

Michael Martin · Post by **Michael Martin** » Tue Nov 21, 2000 4:34 am

Well, the fact that a lot of the underlying machinery was "buggy" is also a problem. And I can't really think of any sort of official group more qualified than the judicial branch to deal with it.The master machinery's actually working, believe it or not. It's just that the whole situation is weird.(And, incidentally, popular and electoral votes disagreeing isn't a flaw in the system, either. We have a Senate for a reason.)--Michael------------------
<A HREF="http://wscholars.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Weishaupt Scholars</A> -- Fewer obscure inside jokes than the title would seem to suggest!

Todd Michaels · Post by **Todd Michaels** » Tue Nov 21, 2000 7:28 am

I hesitate to mention this, lest it appear that I give the impression that I get all of my knowledge from television, but there was this line on NBC's West Wing some weeks ago.I can't remember the exact phrasing, but it was close to: "People seem to forget that this isn't a true democracy. It's a republic- voters elect representatives who make the decisions."As an American citizen, I am also growing weary of Election 2000. But I don't think the system is inherently wrong. There was no way that those who wrote the Constitution could foresee every potential problem. This is just a case (as Michael Martin pointed out) of a bug that lay dormant until now.I'm not telling people to stop making fun of the US, because as a cartoonist, of course I see the humor in all this. But say what you will, I still think it's a pretty damned good country.(cue patriotic soundtrack ...)------------------
Todd Michaels
<A HREF="http://boardersandsister.keenspace.com/" TARGET=_blank>Boarders and Sister</A>

MikeCody · Post by **MikeCody** » Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:30 am

all I can say is read my comic------------------
Take a ride on the giant penis of life <A HREF="http://woodsville.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://woodsville.keenspace.com</A>

Dan Nicholls · Post by **Dan Nicholls** » Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:45 am

I think it's stupifying that we yak about the popular vote when the percentage difference is less than one percent! If we did a friggin recount of the whole nation, that could change one way or another. That's reason one why popular vote won't work as well (IMO). Because imagine the problems we're having counting votes with just Florida being less than 1/2 the problems we'd have over a nation. That's one of the reasons popular vote is only pertinent in the localized states, counties, etc. And this isn't the first time it happened either. There's been three times, I believe, in the history of America where the popular vote didn't go to the winner. In one year, 1880 or something, they resolved it by a compromise of "we'll take out the reconstruction-soldiers in the South if we can have the White House." Even JFK and Richard Nixon (you may have seen this in some reports). They were in a strikingly similar situation and Dick did this AMAZING thing...he bowed out without contest for sake of preserving the office and nation. It's not nearly the longest it's gone on either, it's just the longest recently. Ya know, since we've started expecting to know by the time we go to bed. In fact, usually when we "know" who won, we don't because it all comes down to the electoral college, which doesn't meet (or even get appointed usually) until later.I think the system can definitely be improved, though. Mostly the Electoral College. I don't know about dismantling it, but maybe a more representative system. As in, no "vote-your-conscience" alternatives. Just a straight shoot from the state's electoral numbers to the tally. Badda-boom badda-presidente. Which reminds me, anyone remember Nicolodeon's "Go-go para presidente!" thing? ...What? I have nieces. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/biggrin.gif">
------------------
<A HREF="http://gunz.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://gunz.keenspace.com</A>
Because 'Gunz! without the punctuation is like sex without the insane quantities of Jell-O brand lime-green gelatin.AH! Go post in my <A HREF="http://www.keenspace.com/cgi-bin/ubb/fo ... &SUBMIT=Go" TARGET=_blank>forum</A> or we'll all die a furry, furry death! AH!

Alun Clewe · Post by **Alun Clewe** » Wed Nov 22, 2000 2:23 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dan Nicholls:
They were in a strikingly similar situation and Dick did this AMAZING thing...he bowed out without contest for sake of preserving the office and nation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(Ahem.) Actually, from what I've read, that's highly debatable. Apparently there's some evidence that Nixon had been engaging in some shady practices during the election, and he may have bowed out because he knew that if things went on an investigation would have revealed what he'd been up to. As I said, I just read that somewhere, and I don't know for sure that it's a fact, but I do have to say it does seem suspicious for Nixon to have done anything "for [the] sake of preserving the office and nation".Ah, well. Aren't politics fun?------------------
----------------------------------
<A HREF="http://www.soupcomic.com" TARGET=_blank>Soup - The Comic Strip</A>
Gods, heroes, monsters, and soup.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Wed Nov 22, 2000 5:25 am

Dan -
2 points.1. Nixon wouldn't have won the electoral
college had he challenged. Illinois was a
toss-up, given to Kennedy. Kennedy had enough
to win without Illinois. So it was a
different situation.2. Gore won the popular vote. Statistically
speaking, that's beyond doubt. In Florida,
the difference is .00017 of the vote. There
*is* a big difference between a 900 vote lead
in 5.5 million votes, and a 323,700 vote lead
in 100 million votes.------------------
Here comes <A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A>!
Good ol' <A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A>...Yes, sir!
There goes <A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A>.How I hate it.[This message has been edited by BoxJam (edited 11-22-2000).]

Burntdog · Post by **Burntdog** » Wed Nov 22, 2000 10:48 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Dan Nicholls:
And this isn't the first time it happened either. There's been three times, I believe, in the history of America where the popular vote didn't go to the winner. In one year, 1880 or something, they resolved it by a compromise of "we'll take out the reconstruction-soldiers in the South if we can have the White House." Even JFK and Richard Nixon (you may have seen this in some reports). They were in a strikingly similar situation and Dick did this AMAZING thing...he bowed out without contest for sake of preserving the office and nation.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One thing to note is that this is really the first time that a popular vote reflecting the whole population has gone one way and the electoral college might go the other way. In the earlier historical examples its important to understand that (1) voting was much more restricted (things like having to own land, etc); (2) some states didn't have a vote to determine who their "electors" to the electoral college were - the legislature did. So this is really unique in our history. AND its simply never been this close - ever. I don't think anyone really disputes that once they look at the numbers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
I think the system can definitely be improved, though. Mostly the Electoral College. I don't know about dismantling it, but maybe a more representative system. As in, no "vote-your-conscience" alternatives. Just a straight shoot from the state's electoral numbers to the tally. Badda-boom badda-presidente.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Apart from the fact that the electoral college WILL NEVER be dismantled because the small states it favors would have to vote for an amendment to do it (why would they vote for something that reduces their influence on who becomes president) the electoral college serves an important function by ensuring that the president has to appeal to all parts of the country and can't win simply by running up the score in NY and California.However, I think it would be helpful if all states stopped using a winner take all approach to awarding electors and divided the electors in some manner according to the candidate votes in the state. There's nothing stopping states from doing that if they wanted to.
------------------
r s tanner
Burnt Dog Radio - it's wacky dammit!
<A HREF="http://www.burntdogradio.com" TARGET=_blank>http://www.burntdogradio.com</A>

Dan Nicholls · Post by **Dan Nicholls** » Wed Nov 22, 2000 11:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by burntdog:
 Apart from the fact that the electoral college WILL NEVER be dismantled because the small states it favors would have to vote for an amendment to do it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Absolutely. As for the closeness thing, agreed. That it's so close is amazing. I didn't really deny that though...Oh, and Boxjam, points taken- only thing is that if you recount every state a few million starts to look a lot smaller. That was my point, it's less than one percentage point. On the Nixon thing, I just heard a different view from a political anylist is all. Not that I remember all of it or was thinking it was exactly like this election (which it obviously was not entirely).On a different note, I understand Montana to be the state where each vote holds the most "power." Something like 57x a Californian's vote. I don't recall the exact numbers, but if you took how many people:how many electoral votes in the respective states, there was that much of a difference. Kinda cool. That's an awful big span, I'd like to know if it's accurate.------------------
<A HREF="http://gunz.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://gunz.keenspace.com</A>
Because 'Gunz! without the punctuation is like sex without the insane quantities of Jell-O brand lime-green gelatin.AH! Go post in my <A HREF="http://www.keenspace.com/cgi-bin/ubb/fo ... &SUBMIT=Go" TARGET=_blank>forum</A> or we'll all die a furry, furry death! AH!

Nate · Post by **Nate** » Wed Nov 22, 2000 12:04 pm

The truth is, there's absolutely no reason for this to have gone on as long as it has. I get the feeling someone's gearing up for something terrible which we have no idea about yet. The whole thing has the smell of doom to it.Also, <A HREF="http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.h ... stman.html" TARGET=_blank>this article</A> has what just might be a good answer to the whole stupid mess.------------------
<A HREF="http://questionabletales.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://questionabletales.keenspace.com</A> Look what I pooped

Gwalla · Post by **Gwalla** » Wed Nov 22, 2000 12:44 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by burntdog:
 Apart from the fact that the electoral college WILL NEVER be dismantled because the small states it favors would have to vote for an amendment to do it (why would they vote for something that reduces their influence on who becomes president) the electoral college serves an important function by ensuring that the president has to appeal to all parts of the country and can't win simply by running up the score in NY and California.
However, I think it would be helpful if all states stopped using a winner take all approach to awarding electors and divided the electors in some manner according to the candidate votes in the state. There's nothing stopping states from doing that if they wanted to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would reduce the small states' influence too, so they wouldn't go for it.I think the best reform would be to determine a state's electors by an Instant Runoff vote. That's where each voter lists candidates from their favorite to their least-favorite-but-still-acceptable. It then works like a majority election, except if nobody gets the majority the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and those votes are redistributed according to those voters' second choices. The process repeats until somebody gets a majority.Advantages:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Eliminates spoilers...no more "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" bullshit. Likewise, no "a vote for Browne is a vote for Gore".
<LI>It actually has a chance of happening. Elections are handled by the states, and in states with an initiative process it could be done through that.
<LI>It doesn't reduce smaller states' influence in the Presidential election.
</UL>Disadvantages:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Slightly more complicated than voting for a single candidate.
</UL>
------------------
They're coming to take me away, ha ha, they're coming to take me away!

Seven3 · Post by **Seven3** » Thu Nov 23, 2000 1:03 am

That's called a Borda count and has another big problem:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by the article Nate mentioned:
...it often produces a better consensus candidate than the plurality method, assuming voters rank the candidates sincerely. But it can produce head-scratching results if voters try to beat the system. For example, if all Democrats rank Gore first and Bush last, and all Republicans rank Bush first and Gore last, voters might wake up the next morning with a surprise winner Ralph Nader, say, or Pat Buchanan thanks to all the second-place votes. The system would clearly take some getting used to. (The problem of insincere voting was pointed out to Borda himself. His response was characteristic of a more optimistic age: "My system is only for honest men.")<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>------------------
Time will tell. Sooner or later, time will tell - Albert Einstein, Red Alert.
Don't Panic. - Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Spam Works(tm) - Overloaded billboard, <A HREF="http://portside.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>PortSide</A>
__|__P /_._
. |/ .. . |/
. / . .. / _
A pic from the first violent video game, Axe.

Gwalla · Post by **Gwalla** » Thu Nov 23, 2000 2:12 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Seven3:
That's called a Borda count<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, Borda is different. I used to be a supporter of Borda, but I realized that it had the problem you listed.In a Borda count, each candidate gets a number of "points" according to their position in a list: for example, the first candidate listed gets 10 points, the second gets 9, the third 8, and so on until the tenth candidate gets 1 point (you can vote for fewer than 10, but not more). The points for each candidate are then totalled up, and whoever has the most points wins.An Instant Runoff count is just like a normal runoff election, except it just goes down lists instead of requiring that people keep going back to the polls until someone gets a majority. It assumes that someone who voted for a candidate that would have gotten into the hypothetical runoff would vote for that candidate again, and only people who voted for someone who lost get their next choice counted.IIRC, the mayor of London is now elected through Instant Runoff.------------------
They're coming to take me away, ha ha, they're coming to take me away!

Michael Martin · Post by **Michael Martin** » Thu Nov 23, 2000 4:27 am

For those of you in the Berkeley area, there's going to be a big talk on just this subject on Monday, I believe. Check for flyers.--Michael------------------
<A HREF="http://wscholars.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Weishaupt Scholars</A> -- Fewer obscure inside jokes than the title would seem to suggest!

Screwball McGoo [gDC] · Thu Nov 23, 2000 4:28 am

Except that the points aren't points. They say that the number of electors given to each state are going to be selected based upon who you vote for. Voting for "Al Gore" in a state with (hypothetically) 7 points is a vote for seven people who will represent your state when the electoral college meets. There is nothing that binds these electors to the will of the people officially... At least with a REAL punishment. This means that electors can and have on rare occasion voted any which way they please for anyone living, dead, running, or Kiwi. Well, not from New Zealand because he wouldn't be a not-naturalized citizen, but you get the picture.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Seven3:
Everyone in The US who's over 18 gets to vote to see which party wins in their state. The winner of a state gets points based on population, and the party with the most point wins the election.
But if the loser wants contest the result, both parties hire a conspiracy (I'm pretty sure that's what they call a group-) of high priced lawyers and take the matter to higher and higher levels of the legal system. At the top of which are 7 people (out of a population of 274,943,494.00) who make the final decision, and this is called Democracy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>------------------
Now with additional Jet Set Radio.<A HREF="http://nerdz.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank> NERDZ</A>.

RichardIWebster · Post by **RichardIWebster** » Thu Nov 23, 2000 5:29 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MikeCody:
all I can say is read my comic
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ye gods! Your comic, Woodsville, is listed
as "Comics" in the Keenspace Select-a Space
Drop Down Menu,a nd I don't think it even
works in the Lavender List!